The Rise of Corporate Fascism

I am very deeply concerned by the events of today in the Supreme Court. I am genuinely worried that corporations will be further anthropormorphized. I cannot see how within the depths of any form of rational level of reason that a person as educated as a court justice can justify the view that a corporation is a person, and endow it with human characteristics. While it is true a person can pour his heart and soul into a business and make it something great...I refuse and fundamentally believe it to be dangerous to state that a man-made institution of people who work as cogs constitutes a person. I am very genuinely concerned as well about what this means for everyone. Would a "christian" company object to laws protecting LGBT persons, or paying women a fair wage, or that women can even talk back to men. How about the right of persons to engage in fornicating activities and using that as justification for terminating their employment? Shall we allow businesses to install cameras in our homes to inspect them at all times. To ensure that their employees are living a "christian" life? While these remarks may sound inflammatory and perhaps even hyperbolic...I believe this could lead us down a very dangerous road for the future.

Corporations are not people, friends.  They are machines.  The people who work for them are people.  Their kids are people and their families are people...but a business is not a person.  A business cannot worship God.  A business cannot, without human actions perform acts of kindness.  A business cannot do unto others unless the person at the head of such a company does said kindness.  This fixation with worshiping corporations as something that is greater than a person disturbs me deeply. Steadily, big business is establishing frameworks that will elevate business above that of the human being.  Business welfare will rule the day, while human welfare will fall by the wayside, regarded as unproductive and irrelevant. We will be truly enslaved to the whims and emotions of people wielding vastly huge amounts of power...and that scares the crap out of me beyond any measure.  I can fire my congressmen or senator or president or governor and so forth...but I can't fire a big business corporation if it wields such vast amounts of influence that he becomes untouchable.  This is exactly what I fear is happening now.  That we as a nation have started down a path to corporate dominance in this country.  A dominance that will lead to corporate fascism of the most heinous degree.  Where my boss and his boss will dominate my behavior, my lifestyle, and with enough power could subjugate me and exclude me from society as an outcast or an "untouchable".  Where women are discarded as substandard, where minorities are regarded with disgust and disdain because they won't conform to a system that is thrust upon them.  

Call me paranoid if you want...but this scenario is far more likely to happen than the government swinging in on their Apaches to steal your guns or whatever nonsense you want to imagine.  

About Fred Phelps Death

Regarding the Fred Phelps issue.  I know that MANY who he hurt want to drag his corpse, lynch it from a tree and set it on fire.  But not me.  I want to approach his death with a sense of forgiveness.  Its true he hurt millions of people with his vitreous and toxic sludge of a mouth.  Me included as a gay man myself.  But I want to extend the olive branch and make the proposition that if his daughter did indeed kick him out for "softening his tone" towards the LGBT community, then...should we consider that perhaps his heart was starting to soften a tad?  Should we not use this opportunity to show that even the most hateful people can change their hearts?  Is it rational that I want to show the least bit of consideration to him and perhaps forgive him of his trespasses against me?  That if he is before God being judged or whatever, that I'd appear as an advocate for him saying "His heart was changing, consider that in favor of him?"  I don't know, I might be off my rocker, but I'd like to think that I could forgive such person.  That my grace is sufficient for even him.  The "good riddance" attitude towards him, I feel, is not constructive towards repairing the hateful divide between reactionaries that hate us with all their hearts, and us who probably despise such reactionaries just as much.

I don't know...

Am I off base?  Am I behaving irrationally?  Do you think I'm just plain wrong?  Tell me your view, and why.

Dalai Lama Opens Senate Session With Prayer

Since the beginning of the Senate and the House of Representatives, the sessions of both houses have opened with a prayer.  Not your typical church prayer, but an varying degree of different denominations and faiths have opened the session with a non-specific religious prayer.  Today (3/6/2014), the Senate of the United States opened the session with his holiness, The Dalai Lama opened the senate with a prayer of his own.  Watch the prayer by clicking on this link.

Dalai Lama Opens Senate With Prayer

"With our thoughts, we make our world," said the Dalai Lama, dressed in gold and red robes. "Our mind is central and precedes our deeds. Speak or act with a pure mind and happiness will follow you like a shadow that never leaves."
"as long as space remains and as long as sentient beings remain, until then may I, too, remain and help dispel the misery of the world."

The Dalai Lama is the leader of Tibetan Buddhists who fled China amid the Communist uprising in 1959 and has since resided in India in exile.  

Naturally many who are less tolerant of other religious took reservation with a non-christian leader opening the Senate with a prayer of goodwill.  But instead of focusing on the remarks of a few people on the outer fringe, let's talk about the prayer itself and why it's so moving a a spoken oration.  

There is no mention in New Testament Scripture about being intolerant to other faith's prayers of goodwill.  Often times, we as Christians will pray for anyone for whatever reason our heart leads us to do.  And as such, we should accept and be blessed by other faiths' prayers to us.  I can think of no finer forum for the Dalai Lama's words than the Seat of US Government.  

"With our thoughts we make our world."  This statement is nothing new in Christian belief.  It's by our actions that we shape the world around us, and we can use those actions to make our world better or worse.

"Our mind is central and precedes our deeds."  We always hope to think and consider counsel before we take actions.  Many scripture references in the Bible have often elevated careful consideration before taking action, such as Proverbs 15:22 "Plans fail for lack of counsel,    but with many advisers they succeed." or Proverbs 11:14 "For lack of guidance a nation falls, but victory is won through many advisers."  We are asked to consider what we do before we do it.  That careful planning will bring a positive outcome.  

"Speak or act with a pure mind and happiness will follow you like a shadow that never leaves."  People who walk in righteousness, who respect their fellow man as human beings, who do unto others as you would have them do unto you, who love their neighbors and execute their offices with reverence and the prominence of the first servant philosophy serve only to serve, and their service is the greatest satisfaction for true public servants.  (Matt 7:12, Mark 12:31, Matt 22:36-40)

"as long as space remains and as long as sentient beings remain, until then may I, too, remain and help dispel the misery of the world."  This statement by his Holiness is the most interesting to me.  As long as we have the capacity of free will, the ability to act and change the world around us, we are charged with bringing peace and love to the world.  I find no indifference with this statement, as this is the primary charge of being a Christian.  Going unto the world bringing the grace, forgiveness, compassion, charity, and generosity that encompasses being a Christian.  And it's not just Christianity that this is tied to.  Many world religions both minor and major mostly preach and teach a similar position.  Do unto others is not an exclusively Christian teaching  It just got the most press.  (See Matt 7:12, Mark 16:15, 1 Thess 4:7)

Conclusions: Christianity as a whole has no cause to condemn such a beautiful piece of oration.  There is nothing objectionable or controversial that was said by his Holiness, nor was there anything said that indicates praise of another deity.  (not that such a thing would matter to me.)  Our goal when we interact with other faiths should be to find our common grounds, and collude together how we can move the world to a better place using our shared beliefs and shared goals.  

Models of Public Healthcare: An Overview

Are you working class but working a job without insurance?  Or perhaps you're barely getting by and have no real spare money for much these days.  Do you avoid the doctor cause of the cost of the office visit plus the cost of the lost pay from work?  There are simpler and more efficient solutions out there in the world about how we deliver healthcare services to our citizens.  So, how would a national single-payer system established in the United States look?

Let's examine a few models for single payer healthcare that we already see in this country.  Let's start with Medicare/Medicaid.  Both programs do the same thing but for different demographics.  If we created a system like Medicare...but for all, the system would create a single base policy that all states would adopt as their state-managed policy.  States then would choose whether to leave that policy intact or to add to it at their expense.  In Medicare, each state manages it's own program, uses it's own employees to enroll people in the program, pay the bills incurred by that state's program participants, and so forth.  It's mandated and paid by the Federal Government, managed by the State government.  Such a relationship would easily work for our nation, because the infrastructure is already in place.

Another model for care that the US could employ would be complete nationalization of all healthcare resources like that of the VA Healthcare System or the UK National Health Service.  These services are truly a pure socialist system.  In these systems, the primary care providers, ER doctors, surgeons, specialists, and other professionals are "state" employees (State meaning publicly paid federal employees).  In the UK, most hospitals and doctors are public employees which are paid salaries by the state and who centrally manage appointments, doctors, the master policy of the program...the works.  Private healthcare doesn't exist for the most part in these kinds of systems.  The VA system is modeled on the UK system, and for the most part works very well.  The quality of care is great and the attention to the patient's need is paramount.  The focus of the UK and VA healthcare systems is enabling access to all equally with a relatively strong amount of triage being taken into account as well.  Such a system is very effective in the UK and works very well.  The only complaint about such systems are they tend to be a tad backlogged for generic appointments and can result in long queue times.  However, for people who are ill, it's a nice benefit to be able to walk into a doctor's office and be seen when you're ill without any worry about cost to yourself.

Finally, another model which would likely be the model we use could be the Canadian Single Payer model.  This model is essentially each state having it's own healthcare program with a baseline program that the Federal Government creates to make it Universal.  In this arrangement, each state would be responsible for funding and managing it's own health program with transfer payments from the Federal Government to assist...likely based on a "per head" formula.  Some states can compete for which offers the best care by providing access to additional kinds of care like dental or vision services.  Such care would likely be paid for by either a consumption tax or a flat-rate percentage excise tax that all citizens pay equally. Each state would be responsible for determining what funding model to use to pay for their services whether income-based or consumption-based.

All these models are not out of reach for our nation.  Each has a strong history of success and the persistence to provide healthcare for all our citizens.  The Single Payer question has been one about human rights.  Is healthcare a profit-based service or an inalienable right as a member of a nation?  I, personally, believe it's a right for all citizens.  And that the quality of life is paramount to the right to offer for-profit service in this regard, but I also want to be clear...that I believe every person's labor is worth the effort and education and demand that is due, and that no person should be required to "give" their labor away for free.  Individuals who work in such systems get paid, and paid quite well.  Doctors in nations like Canada and England enjoy a posh salary, no worry about malpractice insurance, and the opportunity to help those in need without worrying about insurance companies.  Ultimately, the fabric of our society is what will determine the answer tot his question for the next two generations.

Democrats Are the People's Party, Republicans are the Corporatists Party

I agree with the premise that everyone has the inalienable right to be successful, to start a business, to earn money so long as it doesn't hurt others, to compete in a competitive market, and to strive for efficiency and advancement using economics as a means of doing so. Republicans have no interest in creating a legal framework which allows you as business or individual to challenge corporate power. We see this example where large corporations are now allowed to require you to sign away your rights to enter into a class-action lawsuit against a company...one of the greatest mechanisms that consumers had to fight corporate abuse. Or the abuses by natural or publicly regulated monopolies or privatized public institutions like prisons. Then there's the free trade agreements with various poor nations which allow corporations to send jobs for substandard labor costs at the expense of our own labor force. The Trans Pacific Partnership which would give corporate giants enormous power to override local democracies decisions about food and product regulation. Too much power is being given to corporations at the expense of the citizen and the worker. If you want a competitive society and a world where everyone's opportunity to be successful is tallied by the amount of hard work they put into a goal, then you want to vote for Democrats. Democrats have been fighting for social justice, for policies that create a fair and competitive business environment, and a system of justice that is fair and equitable. A system where corporations don't buy politicians. Where we have a congress that cares that they have a 9% approval rating instead of ignoring it like this congress has. Where people are put first before profits, and where abusers of their power are brought to justice and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law regardless of the cost. Vote for Democrats when you vote this next midterm election and embrace a political party that cares about the little guy as much as the big guy equally. Vote for Democrats if you want a party that puts pragmatism ahead of ideology, and Vote for Democrats if you want a government that doesn't try to shove narrow-minded values down your throat by the way of legislation. Vote Democrat.  

Income Taxes: The Hedge Against Extreme Poverty and Wealth

For many decades, the income tax has been used by many governments across the world to maintain a balance in the levels of income allocation among it's citizens.  After World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt instituted what was regarded as a progressive income tax system which levied very high taxes on what the government considers high levels of income.  The idea of the income tax was to ensure that the government would have sufficient money to invest in society as a whole while also ensuring that individuals did not gain huge amounts of influence as to topple the system of government which is by and for the people.  In the 1950s, the top marginal tax rate peaked at 91%, but we also steady, continuous economic growth which persisted mostly above 3% for over 40 years.  It wasn't until the early 1980s that such growth started to wane and unstable levels of growth and contraction became the new norm.

With the flattening of the income tax and the loopholes that have been injected into it, the wealthy now pay rates as low as zero, as high as only 35% at most.  Also consider, that with the redefinition of certain types of incomes making the tax rate for personal incomes significantly lower than the current 35% threshold which was created during the Bush Administration.  Capital Gains, investments, and interest are taxed at a meager 15% meaning that the wealthy don't pay what they otherwise would pay.  This income type is the exception rather than the rule.  Only the top 1% gain their income by this manner, meaning that no working class person will see tax rates this low ever.  And while the wealthy may pay more monetarily...proportionally they pay significantly less.  The results have caused a severe concentration of wealth at the top and for the first time in 50 years, the middle class is shrinking quickly.  Wages, disposable income, savings, and investments of the middle class have been wiped out entirely, leaving the next three generations in a position of having to figure out how they will retire when they hit 60 years old.  It also puts them in a position of trying to figure how to provide for a college education for their children, to buy a house, to start a family, and leaving an entire generation of citizens with no means of secure self-sufficiency for the foreseeable future.  A public opinion study done by the Pew Research Center shows that Americans are still very unsure about their job security and worry about whether they'll be employed the next month or not.  Such insecurity has weakened the bargaining power of the American Worker, and has also resulted in a down-ward pressure on wages across most unskilled to moderate-skill industries.  The downward pressure of incomes has also resulted in the middle class being dropped out of tax brackets that they would have been in had their incomes continued to grow at a steady rate.  The free trade agreements, deregulation, and overall decreases in wages have also all resulted in many American households no longer paying taxes.  During the Reagan Administration, the argument about broadening the tax base was made as a justification for lowering taxes.  That reduction resulted in the wealthy exerting an undue amount of influence in congress, touting proposals that work to undermine the political influence of the middle class and the poor.

So what's the solution to all this grim news?  The solution is to return us to policies and legal frameworks which protected the middle class of the Post-War era.  The pro-union, populist, and pro-worker agenda which brought about the greatest expansion in US History, and created a middle class that had never existed in the history of our nation.  The wealthy weren't super wealthy and the poor weren't super poor.  Everyone was pretty flat with minor differences in income levels.  That balance made sure that the populace was involved in politics.  The higher rates alongside with pro-wage tax deductions for businesses keep money circulating throughout the economy, maintaining a purchase-powerhouse of a middle class, and a friendly investment environment.

Fight the good fight.

The Bible and Politics

As always, these blog posts begin as Facebook Status updates where I get on a roll and rant:

Many have asked me how I can hold my views about social, economic, and political issues and still be "Christian". Ok, it's a fair question. I'm pro-choice, pro-LGBT rights, a low-grade feminist, I believe in equal rights, the social safety net, that justice should be just and fair, that wages should be fair, and that people who try deserve another chance to succeed. But I also believe in working hard, doing your best, and believing that one's effort is rewarded by abundance. 

So what does that mean for my beliefs? It says that I'm capable of having political views that aren't weighed by the views of a few narrow-minded people who read The Bible like stereo instructions. Who interpret the words of a 66-book cannon which was complied by a group of Catholic Monks in 367 A.C.E. That I'm capable of reading The Bible in the context and times and cultures for which it was written, and that I'm scholarly enough to understand the difference between Jesus' spoken words (The Red Letters), and the words spoken by people who were observing events through the lens of their time and culture or people (The Old Testament) or people writing post-Jesus commentary related to the events and circumstances in which life placed them (The Letters and Epistles). It means I understand that Biblical literalism is one of the most heinous lies of this generation ever observed to this date. And, I understand that the only document purported to be written directly by God is the 10 Commandments (See Exodus), and the only thing that is says is Worship God by these rules, and Don't be dicks to each other (excuse the harsh language, but it's to make a sharp and pointy point.) 

And finally what it means is that Christians everywhere need to wake up and cast off these jerks, these false "prophets" who claim to have God's ear. Who claim to speak as though they're the Pope, or Jesus himself. Who steal your money to enrich themselves, and fill your mind with dogmatic falsehoods. Who pit you against the very poor people as lazy or sinful or corrupt or faggots. Guess what fellow “believers”…THOSE ARE WHO YOU SERVE! YOU SERVE THE UNDERPRIVILEGED! The call of The Great Commission is to go unto all the world baptizing those in the name of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. Not to conquer in Jesus' Name, not to berate, or oppress or judge or condemn or to steal, kill, and destroy. And most definitely not to force compliance of a warped version of Christianity that is fraudulent, cruel, and oppressive.

Christianity is not a club, it's not a mace or a morning star or a broad sword. It's a scroll, it's a vision, it's a purpose, and most greatly, it's a message of hope for all mankind. Your only job is to live that hope, and be there for when someone asks you about it. Nothing more, nothing less. Live and let live, but help others live better too by following Jesus’ example; through his demonstrations of love, compassion, hope, and justice. If you can't do that, then you're not a Christian that I recognize.